Is it? "Also the mantras and spells; the obeah and the wanga; the work of the wand and the work of the sword; these he shall learn and teach." Is this metaphorical, or was Crowley being instructed to learn and teach African-rooted Caribbean magick?

Yeah I agree and I stated that above in my Mon Dec 26, 2016 3:34 pm post where I wrote,

"Do I think that [i]Liber Al is a white supremacist document? Well if the Law is for All then All are called to attempt to align with that Law. Black rights? White rights? Working class rights? Women's rights? Thou has no right but to do thy will ....................

Cp 2 ; 17. Hear me, ye people of sighing! The sorrows of pain and regret Are left to the dead and the dying, The folk that not know me as yet.

18. These are dead, these fellows; they feel not. We are not for the poor and sad: the lords of the earth are our kinsfolk. 19. Is a God to live in a dog? No! but the highest are of us. They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us. 20. Beauty and strength, leaping laughter and delicious languor, force and fire, are of us.

As you can see, no particular race, class or gender specified i.e. the addressees in those passages are not categorized as such.[/i]"

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

This frog-headed god of darkness. How does it relate to Set who is the god of darkness, jealousy, oppression and misery?

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

There is a hell of a lot of confusion about Kek and the alt-right. Unless you are in the front seat daily and sometimes hourly of the right blogs, twitter and youtube and have been there since gamergate I swear most of you won't understand what it is at all. But it's nothing that the media are telling you. Of course. Why would it be?The truth is.1.The alt right ie Stormfront do use Kek yes.(v small group who get trolled and mocked by 2+3)2.Trolls also use kek. (largest group)3.Center left , center right and liberals use kek. (second largest group but influences the larger group of trolls - yes there are that many trolls)editThe rest of it was explaining why and how the center left feel this way but. meh. Deleted. It's not helping anything.

Read through the article, the meaning of the synchronicity seems to stem from a particular subjective interpretation and culmination of symbols drawn from an incredibly vast range of possible connections and distinctions. What, why, and how this information has any prevalence at all to the connection of Trump's inauguration to some "new-right prophesy" is totally determinant on a predisposed view-set that is not synonymous with Thelema. Will with a capital "W" in Thelema is different from the collective will of a socio-political faction intent to instill a leader in a governmental body through the use of internet "meme-magick." Anyone can push their will in a direction to achieve a desired mean, magick occurs in each moment through all motion.

Hannah wrote:Read through the article, the meaning of the synchronicity seems to stem from a particular subjective interpretation and culmination of symbols drawn from an incredibly vast range of possible connections and distinctions. What, why, and how this information has any prevalence at all to the connection of Trump's inauguration to some "new-right prophesy" is totally determinant on a predisposed view-set that is not synonymous with Thelema. Will with a capital "W" in Thelema is different from the collective will of a socio-political faction intent to instill a leader in a governmental body through the use of internet "meme-magick." Anyone can push their will in a direction to achieve a desired mean, magick occurs in each moment through all motion.

I'm not so sure about that as part of Thelema is about belief in gods. Gods have a strange way of behaving and manifesting e.g. from Liber Al "1:64. I am the blue-lidded daughter of Sunset; I am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky." or, on a note appertaining to this thread the god may manifest as a sociological aggregate; "3:46. "I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased"

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

Yes, see the collected works of Aleister Crowley. I suggest that you start with the introductory chapters to The Book of the Law.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

Yes, I know them well. I've read them many times over and yet this is the first time I'm hearing that Thelema is about belief in anything, much less gods. Could you provide a citation for that premise? I'd love to study it more deeply.

Gnosomai Emauton wrote:Yes, I know them well. I've read them many times over and yet this is the first time I'm hearing that Thelema is about belief in anything, much less gods. Could you provide a citation for that premise? I'd love to study it more deeply.

A couple of quotes from that statement;FIRST, we are most fundamentally a school of spiritual matters. SECOND, we use the Thelemic worldview (received and developed by Aleister Crowley throughout his life) as our framework. Phyllis Seckler (Soror Meral) founded a system devoted foremost to awakening people encased in the illusion of their mortality to their immortal, spiritual natures. I happily continue and expand on that foundation and

The boundary is this: On a forum devoted foremost to spiritual, magical, mystical things, it is off-topic to the entire forum to come from a place opposed to or dismissive of spiritual, magical, or mystical things. Makes sense, right?

You're side tracking this thread, we're onto gods as aggregates. If you want to start another 27 page thread such as "Crowley: "Materialist or religionist?" elsewhere, then be my guest.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

This thread started with a question about the alt right and a picture of kek. I fail to see how my calling you out for false premises is any more off-topic than is your introduction of "belief in gods" as a pre-requisite for Thelema.

You are resting your response to Hannah's post on the premise that there is some sort of "belief" that is required in the practice of Thelema. I am calling that premise into question. If you can't defend your premise, then your following argument loses its foundation.

So, once again... from where have you gleaned this premise that part of Thelema is about "belief" in anything, much less "gods"?

Soror Virakam wrote:Frater Perdurabo is the most honest of all the great religious teachers. Others have said: "Believe me!" He says:"Don't believe me!" He does not ask for followers; would despise and refuse them. He wants an independent and self-reliant body of students to follow out their own methods of research. If he can save them time and trouble by giving a few useful "tips," his work will have been done to his own satisfaction.

Those who have wished men to believe in them were absurd. A persuasive tongue or pen, or an efficient sword, with rack and stake, produced this "belief," which is contrary to, and destructive of, all real religious experience.

The whole life of Frater Perdurabo is now devoted to seeing that you obtain this living experience of Truth for, by, and in yourselves!

Once again, It may be a good idea for you to re-educate yourself on the "Who we are" section because you appear to want to start a sceptical-materialist versus religionist debate. I said all this in my last post here, the contents of which answer your latest questions.

I'm on this thread where I'm saying and AC is saying that Gods can be "the collective will of a socio-political faction intent to instill a leader in a governmental body through the use of internet "meme-magick" as well as many other things. I already quoted from Liber Al and I suggested that you read the introductory chapters of that same book

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

I'm not so sure about that as part of Thelema is about belief in gods. Gods have a strange way of behaving and manifesting e.g. from Liber Al "1:64. I am the blue-lidded daughter of Sunset; I am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky." or, on a note appertaining to this thread the god may manifest as a sociological aggregate; "3:46. "[i]I am the warrior Lord of the Forties: the Eighties cower before me, & are abased"

I like the previous discussion on "What do we mean by God anyway?" From what I have seen, different people/viewpoints resonate with different facets/conceptions of God, language is confounding, especially in matters such as this. I find the Qabalistic philosophy most resonant, a pure Light descends the Tree, casting different variations of currents that culminate in the physical realm. These currents seem to have particular behaviors/patterns... All of the workings go vastly unseen, and much of what we do see is through the lens of our own particular/limited view of the world through our mind. Some interpretations serve well for some, others do not.

I read the article. Seems to be some loose patterns there. From a data collection standpoint, the conclusions drawn from the premise are weak. Cool article and seems persuasive. Interesting to see someone talking about chaos magic with an apparent dislike of SJWs. I'm not exposed to that viewpoint often.

I would generally say that one political standpoint (right, left, etc.) from a magical practitioner is interesting to say the least. I would wonder what made their personal stance/perspective the correct one, especially if it fits so nicely into someone else's fabricated box.

Do memes work? Hell yes they do. A symbol in the consciousness and concentration on it by one entity (or even better, more than one entity) is attention. Attention is energy. This gives the symbol a life of its own. The trick is to be able to control the entity once "life" is given to it obviously - this gets even more difficult in a "group working." Anyway, this applies to symbols/sigils or anything else that brings consciousness into concentrated energy - it is stronger with numbers (e.g. flags, gods, etc.). It's not a new theory - egregores are a very old idea. Even history is a perfect example of how a talisman (written idea) can completely reshape reality, which is arguably a type of meme.

As far as KEK, haha I'm not convinced from this article. There is a thing called false pattern recognition. Never mind how insignificant a president is to an overall, more powerful agenda. As if a middle manager's ideas matter in relation to what the CEOs want to do.

As far as belief in particular gods as being an intrinsic part of Thelema - that's ridiculous. The first words of Liber OZ will clear that up.

In ceremonial magic, it is part and parcel to believe in gods - or at least to "believe." The Instructions of concentration exercises, energy manifestation, etc. are aimed at teaching one how to empower the consciousness of the practitioner with tools. This requires belief (or at least suspension of disbelief). Belief is a tool. Doubt makes magick less effective or ineffective.

I would say a VERY large aspect is to control the belief mechanism (as well as the emotional mechanism - look at the Tower (House of God) between Hod/Netzach for further symbolism) and the practices are pretty revealing of that. So, it isn't so much about belief in gods per se, it is more about being able to turn belief on/off and learning to master the "I" in "I believe _________." Liber III shows a good example of this. Or even better, Liber XVI.

Easy to see why the ego (untrained belief in identity from skewed self-narrative, etc.) is a problem when it comes to success in magick.

Frater 639 wrote:IAs far as belief in particular gods as being an intrinsic part of Thelema - that's ridiculous. The first words of Liber OZ will clear that up. .

I see, so one tiny little quote from one single document seals the deal on the issue?

Like I was saying if you want to start a 27 page thread on 'Crowley: metaphysician or sceptic?' then be my guest. For every metaphysical statement he made about himself having no doubt about the reality of praeter-human intelligences (presumably that includes "gods") you could play tennis and e.g. throw in the quote about the importance of not attributing "philosophical validity" from Liber O or from anywhere else e.g "there is no god but man."

Sure, if one is going to try to make a science out of spiritual practice and spiritual /"astral" affairs then one is going to disregard and ridicule any statement about outright religionist belief in spirits etc and that is what AC tried to do in an attempt to bring respectability to Theosophical matters. However, you cannot deny that he was schizophrenic in his writings with regards to this matter throughout his entire life. He played the haughty scientist card when he wanted to but anyone familiar with his work knows that it is impossible to conclude that this was his final say on the subject.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

gerry456 wrote:I see, so one tiny little quote from one single document seals the deal on the issue?

I teased apart the ideas of ceremonial magic and Thelema. Although, they are intertwined a great deal - it doesn't necessarily presuppose that you need to believe in gods to be an adherent of Thelema. Again - I repeat - that's ridiculous.

gerry456 wrote:Like I was saying if you want to start a 27 page thread on 'Crowley: metaphysician or sceptic?' then be my guest. For every metaphysical statement he made about himself having no doubt about the reality of praeter-human intelligences (presumably that includes "gods") you could play tennis and e.g. throw in the quote about the importance of not attributing "philosophical validity" from Liber O or from anywhere else e.g "there is no god but man."

Crowley was both. Don't create a false dilemma where there is none. Again, his ability to be both goes back to being able to turn on and off beliefs. This is a common Ordeal in the Neophyte Tasks (and sometimes beyond), where the Aspirant will reduce phenomena to a false binary of strict objective/subjective. Dissolution of ego can make switching points of view very fluid. AC's writings fluctuate between perspectives easily - as anyone who has "invoked gods" can do if they are adept.

We don't need to go further on this idea, as it is way OT - but just to be clear, in ritual you suspend disbelief (the metaphysician) then you write the record (the scientist). And this is assessed and conclusions are drawn skeptically. That being said, any imbalance in favor of one or the other will create an issue with efficacy. Generally, this imbalance will manifest as delusion on one hand, lack of result on the other. Both of those pitfalls are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It CAN be a lot like tennis.

gerry456 wrote:Sure, if one is going to try to make a science out of spiritual practice and spiritual /"astral" affairs then one is going to disregard and ridicule any statement about outright religionist belief in spirits etc and that is what AC tried to do in an attempt to bring respectability to Theosophical matters. However, you cannot deny that he was schizophrenic in his writings with regards to this matter throughout his entire life. He played the haughty scientist card when he wanted to but anyone familiar with his work knows that it is impossible to conclude that this was his final say on the subject.

Again, I'll repeat myself one more time because I think you missed my original point - the spirit model can be a helpful model for convenience. It doesn't mean the magician believes in gods per se. Again, the belief mechanism is fluid in that way. I'll leave a couple quotes that illustrate this regarding the astral plane:

"We may consider all beings as parts of ourselves, but it is more convenient to regard them as independent. Maximum Convenience is our cannon of “Truth”"

"It is more convenient to assume the objective existence of an “Angel” who gives us new knowledge than to allege that our invocation has awakened a supernormal power in ourselves."

gerry456 wrote:I see, so one tiny little quote from one single document seals the deal on the issue?

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Who or what is the"thou" in this?

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

Frater 639, your last post was good, I have no problem with your points there and I don't want to go around in a loop. By the way, the This is Who We Are statement on this forum, do you agree with it?

Here's a quote from it "The boundary is this: On a forum devoted foremost to spiritual, magical, mystical things, it is off-topic to the entire forum to come from a place opposed to or dismissive of spiritual, magical, or mystical things. Makes sense, right?"

I guess your statements are not dismissive as such but they're pretty close, I don't know.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

gerry456 wrote:Frater 639, your last post was good, I have no problem with your points there and I don't want to go around in a loop. By the way, the This is Who We Are statement on this forum, do you agree with it?

Here's a quote from it "The boundary is this: On a forum devoted foremost to spiritual, magical, mystical things, it is off-topic to the entire forum to come from a place opposed to or dismissive of spiritual, magical, or mystical things. Makes sense, right?"

I guess your statements are not dismissive as such but they're pretty close, I don't know.

Thank you.

I think the boundary is a good marker for the context desired and suits the aims of the forum. I'm not affiliated in any way with the Temple of Thelema other than occasionally contributing to this forum. The info, culture, open discussion, etc. on here is a valuable resource for many and I try to give back when I can.

Jim's vast knowledge, attainments, experience, etc. are testament to the efficacy of the System of the A.'.A.'.

My statements are inclusive of many things spiritual, magical, or mystical. In my opinion, there are many models used to explain phenomena (spiritual, energetic, psychological, neurobiological, etc.) and they can function simultaneously without necessarily excluding each other. It isn't zero sum. For me personally, they are different tools and each one has its strengths/weaknesses when explaining certain phenomena.

I know we are OT but I wanted to ask:

How about you? How do you feel about the "Who We Are" statement? From the tone of your posts, you seem to have more skeptical leanings, which I think is invaluable, as long as it is not at the expense of being open-minded to data that goes beyond what mundane science is willing to accept. Sometimes, your posts seem like trolling but I really sense a desire to cut through bullshit, which I respect when it is done respectfully.

Frater 639 wrote:How about you? How do you feel about the "Who We Are" statement? .

Yeah it's all good.

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

IHow about you? How do you feel about the "Who We Are" statement? From the tone of your posts, you seem to have more skeptical leanings, which I think is invaluable, as long as it is not at the expense of being open-minded to data that goes beyond what mundane science is willing to accept. Sometimes, your posts seem like trolling but I really sense a desire to cut through bullshit, which I respect when it is done respectfully.

"Cutting through bullshit", that phrase could be used as a blunt definition of the scientific method perhaps? It could also be used as a definition of Thelema.

If one is not"cutting through bullsh1t" then what is one doing in this forum?

2.19 They shall rejoice, our chosen: who sorroweth is not of us.

2.21 We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of kings: stamp down the wretched & the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.